Overview of the Document
Document title:
Written Inquiry and Request Concerning the Effect of a Final Criminal Judgment Under Violations of the Presumption of Innocence and Judicial Relief
Date of creation:
March 31, 2026
Prepared by:
Toshio Tsumuraya
Submitted to:
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Japan
President of the Sendai High Court
Criminal Section of the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court
Requester:
Toshio Tsumuraya
Type of document:
Written inquiry and request
Attached materials:
Document explanation
Materials No. 1 through No. 15
Receipt and delivery information:
On page 1 of the original, a receipt stamp of the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court dated March 31, 2026, can be confirmed.
At the end of the document, postal delivery certificates addressed to the Supreme Court of Japan and to the Criminal Litigation Office of the Sendai High Court are attached.
Those delivery certificates state that the respective postal items were delivered on April 1, 2026.
Publication format:
PDF with personal information and other necessary portions redacted
Original PDF:
Skip to PDF contentFacts Confirmed by This Document
This document is a written inquiry and request submitted by Toshio Tsumuraya on March 31, 2026, to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Japan, the President of the Sendai High Court, and the Criminal Section of the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court.
The purpose of this document is to confirm how the Japanese judiciary evaluates the fact that, in the course of criminal proceedings, a public authority made a determinative assessment premised on guilt before judgment, and that a guilty judgment was rendered under circumstances in which the principle of the presumption of innocence had been fundamentally violated.
This document also asks how Japan’s judiciary secures the obligation to guarantee the presumption of innocence under Article 14, Paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the obligation to provide an effective remedy under Article 2, Paragraph 3 of the ICCPR.
This document is not structured as a mere objection in an individual case. Rather, it is framed as an institutional request asking whether Japan’s criminal justice system, on the basis of confirmed facts, conforms to the treaty-observance obligation under Article 98, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Japan.
As the factual background of this case, this document states that the accident in question was alleged to have occurred on October 18, 2011; that Toshio Tsumuraya was arrested on suspicion of violating the Road Traffic Act on October 19, 2011; that he was referred to the public prosecutor on October 21; and that, on October 26, the Sukagawa City Council adopted the first resignation recommendation resolution.
In this document, the date on which the accident was alleged to have occurred and the date of arrest are treated as separate dates. This point is important in understanding that, although this was a criminal case involving alleged drunk driving, it was not a case in which the requester was arrested in flagrante delicto on the date of the accident.
The document then states that, around October 30, 2011, as the detention period was approaching its expiration, the prosecutor requested an extension of detention and the judge authorized that extension. It also states that, on November 2, 2011, the prosecutor conducted an interrogation and a significant change occurred in the statement concerning the time of the accident.
The document further states that the requester was indicted on November 9, 2011, and released on bail on the same day; that on December 1, 2011, the Sukagawa City Council adopted the second resignation recommendation resolution; that a summons for trial date was served on November 14, 2011; and that the first trial hearing was held at the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court on December 26, 2011.
In the document explanation attached to this document, Material No. 9 is identified as the summons for trial date dated November 14, 2011.
That material is identified as an original, and its author is stated to be Judge Shuichi Nezaki of the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court.
The document explanation states that this summons for trial date shows that the court accepted the indictment made under circumstances contrary to the presumption of innocence, determined the trial date on that basis, and served the summons on the requester.
This description confirms, within this document, that the judge who later pronounced the guilty judgment was also involved at the stage of issuing the summons for trial date.
The document also states that, during the trial, statement records of two city council members who had voted in favor of the resignation recommendation resolution were submitted as evidence by the prosecutor and admitted, and that a guilty judgment was pronounced on January 16, 2012, becoming final on January 31, 2012.
This document expressly states that both resignation recommendation resolutions adopted by the Sukagawa City Council were made before the criminal judgment became final.
The document also organizes the subsequent judicial proceedings: after the written opinion dated April 28, 2025 was submitted, the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court treated it as a retrial request case, assigned case number 2025 Ta No. 1, and dismissed it; the Sendai High Court dismissed the immediate appeal; and the Supreme Court dismissed the special appeal on the ground that it did not raise a constitutional issue.
On that basis, this document identifies the structure confirmed in this case as follows: a public authority violated the presumption of innocence at the suspect stage and before the criminal judgment became final; a significant change occurred in the requester’s statement under those circumstances; the time stated at the time of arrest and the time stated at the time of indictment differed; the acts violating the presumption of innocence were reported and circulated through the press; the criminal proceedings proceeded with the appearance of formal compliance with the Code of Criminal Procedure; and no relief was granted through the retrial proceedings.
In relation to the Constitution of Japan and international law ratified by Japan, this document refers to Article 31, Article 37, Paragraph 1, Article 38, Paragraphs 1 and 2, Article 34, Article 13, Article 98, Paragraphs 1 and 2, and Article 99 of the Constitution of Japan; Article 9, Paragraph 1, Article 14, Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3(g), Article 2, Paragraph 3, and Article 17 of the ICCPR; Articles 26, 27, and 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT); and Article 1 and Article 319, Paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Furthermore, this document positions General Comment No. 32 as an international interpretive standard showing that the guarantees under Article 14 of the ICCPR are not matters left to domestic-law discretion, and that no derogation is permitted from the fundamental principles of a fair trial, including the presumption of innocence, under any circumstances.
The document argues, in light of Articles 26 and 27 of the VCLT, that it is not permissible under international law to refuse relief for violations of rights under the ICCPR on the basis of domestic procedures such as Japan’s Code of Criminal Procedure or the requirements for retrial.
The document also states that the fact that relief has not been granted even through the retrial proceedings requires examination in relation to the effective remedy required by Article 2, Paragraph 3 of the ICCPR.
Regarding the nature of the presumption of innocence and due process, this document states that due process and the presumption of innocence do not arise only when asserted by the defendant, but are principles established to regulate the exercise of state power.
On that basis, the document states that all public authorities bear a duty to refrain from acts that would characterize a suspect or defendant as guilty before a guilty judgment becomes final, and that investigative authorities and courts, as criminal justice authorities, must do more than merely follow the formal procedures of domestic law. They must strictly observe the Constitution, the ICCPR, and other relevant laws, and conduct criminal proceedings and trials in a fair environment free from external influence.
The questions in this document ask, among other things, whether criminal proceedings and a guilty judgment rendered under violations of the presumption of innocence can be cured by the finality of the judgment; what legal basis and concrete doctrine of cure would support such a view; how the continued maintenance of the final judgment can be justified if such violations cannot be cured; how detention extension relates to arbitrary detention; how changes in statements relate to voluntariness; whether the circumstances conform to Article 14, Paragraph 2 of the ICCPR; whether the retrial proceedings substantively examined the claims; whether the handling conformed to effective remedy under Article 2, Paragraph 3 of the ICCPR; how this relates to Article 98, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Japan and Article 27 of the VCLT; and whether the Japanese judicial framework would be regarded as justified in international review.
In the conclusion, the document states that this case raises important questions concerning the relationship between Japan’s judicial system, the Constitution, and the ICCPR with respect to the presumption of innocence and judicial relief in criminal trials. It requests that the addressees clarify their views on the questions and take appropriate measures depending on the circumstances.
Regarding the response deadline, the document requests a written response within 14 days after receipt, in light of the response dated May 2, 2025, to the previous written opinion dated April 28, 2025.
The document explanation lists Materials No. 1 through No. 15, including the ICCPR, General Comment No. 32, minutes of the Sukagawa City Council, statement records, the indictment, the bail permission decision, the summons for trial date, the judgment, the administrative notice, the decision dismissing the retrial request, the decision dismissing the immediate appeal, the decision dismissing the special appeal, and newspaper articles, as materials supporting the claims made in this document.
Important Statements
The first important point in this document is that it was prepared not as a renewed retrial request or a renewed dispute over factual findings, but as a written inquiry and request concerning the effect of a final criminal judgment rendered under violations of the presumption of innocence and the nature of judicial relief.
This document asks how the effect of the final criminal judgment can be grounded under the Constitution and treaty law, on the basis of a sequence of events including pre-judgment public attribution of guilt by a public authority, the progress of criminal proceedings, changes in statements, admission of evidence, finalization of a guilty judgment, and the absence of relief through the retrial proceedings.
Second, this document is important because it proceeds on the factual sequence that the accident in question was alleged to have occurred on October 18, 2011, and that the requester was arrested the following day, October 19.
This case concerns alleged drunk driving, but within this document the date on which the accident was alleged to have occurred and the date of arrest are not the same.
This point is important in positioning the case not as one in which physical custody began immediately through an in-flagrante arrest, but as one in which criminal proceedings proceeded from an arrest on the day after the accident.
Third, this document clearly points out that the two resignation recommendation resolutions adopted by the Sukagawa City Council were both adopted before a judicial judgment became final.
This point is the starting point of the entire case.
The issue in this case is not that a political or social assessment was made after a guilty judgment became final.
The issue is that, before criminal responsibility was finalized, a local assembly as a public authority made public expressions of intent premised on guilt.
Fourth, this document organizes the violation of the presumption of innocence, the significant change in the contents of the statement, the change in the stated time of the accident, circulation through media reports, criminal proceedings that outwardly appeared to comply with formal procedures, and the absence of relief through the retrial proceedings as one integrated structure.
This organization is important.
The document positions this case not as an issue of a single evidentiary evaluation or a single procedural error, but as a structural problem concerning the legality of the criminal proceedings as a whole.
Fifth, the document explanation attached to this document is important because it treats the summons for trial date as an independent material.
That material is an original document dated November 14, 2011, and Judge Shuichi Nezaki of the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court is listed as its author.
This document positions that summons for trial date as material showing that, under circumstances contrary to the presumption of innocence, the court accepted the indictment, determined the trial date, and served the summons on the requester.
This point is important for examining how the criminal trial proceeded as an ordinary procedure under circumstances in which violation of the presumption of innocence is alleged.
Sixth, this document expressly states that General Comment No. 32 was adopted in 2007, that it already existed as an international interpretive standard at the time of the case in 2011, and that it remains valid today.
This shows that the interpretation of the presumption of innocence at issue in this case is not a new standard introduced after the fact, but an international human rights law standard that already existed at the relevant time.
Seventh, this document argues, in light of Articles 26 and 27 of the VCLT, that it is not permissible under international law to refuse relief for violations of rights under the ICCPR on the basis of domestic procedures such as Japan’s Code of Criminal Procedure or the requirements for retrial.
This is an important legal structure in this case.
In other words, this document asks not only whether the domestic requirements for retrial are satisfied, but also whether domestic procedures can be used to avoid examination of the obligations under the ICCPR concerning the presumption of innocence and effective remedy.
Eighth, this document characterizes Article 98, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution of Japan as a provision denying effect to acts that violate the Constitution, and argues that, if an unconstitutional condition consisting of violation of the presumption of innocence existed as a premise of the proceedings, then the question of how the effect of a final judgment rendered under that condition can be grounded requires constitutional examination.
This statement is one of the core points of the document.
The document asks whether the mere fact that a guilty judgment became final automatically cures the pre-judgment violation of the presumption of innocence, and, if it does not, how the institutional effect of that judgment can be explained.
Ninth, this document states that due process and the presumption of innocence do not arise from the defendant’s assertion, but are principles established to regulate the exercise of state power.
This point is important.
The document does not reduce the violation of the presumption of innocence to the question of whether the defendant asserted it or how it was disputed during the proceedings. Instead, it positions the issue as a legal duty imposed as a matter of course on public authorities and criminal justice authorities.
Tenth, through ten questions, this document asks the courts to address the possibility of curing violations of the presumption of innocence, the doctrine of cure, the justification for maintaining the final judgment, arbitrary detention, voluntariness of statements, conformity with Article 14, Paragraph 2 of the ICCPR, substantive examination in the retrial proceedings, effective remedy under Article 2, Paragraph 3 of the ICCPR, the relationship with Article 98, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution and Article 27 of the VCLT, and the justification of the Japanese judicial framework in international review.
This shows that the document has the nature not merely of a protest, but of a written inquiry seeking the official views of the courts.
Procedural Position in the Criminal Proceedings
This document was submitted after the Third Petty Bench of the Supreme Court dismissed the special appeal on February 6, 2026.
In this case, the written opinion addressed to the court and its attached materials were submitted on April 28, 2025.
Thereafter, the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court treated those submissions as if “a request for retrial had been made,” and handled the matter as 2025 Ta No. 1, a Road Traffic Act retrial request case.
On June 13, 2025, that court issued a request for opinion, asking the requester to submit a written opinion by July 11, 2025.
In response, the requester submitted a written opinion dated July 9, 2025, and thereafter this matter proceeded as a retrial request case.
On December 12, 2025, the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court issued a decision dismissing the retrial request.
In response, Toshio Tsumuraya filed an immediate appeal dated December 15, 2025, and submitted a Supplemental Statement of Reasons for Immediate Appeal dated January 6, 2026.
On January 8, 2026, the First Criminal Division of the Sendai High Court dismissed the immediate appeal.
Toshio Tsumuraya then prepared a Special Appeal Application dated January 11, 2026, and filed a special appeal with the Supreme Court.
On February 6, 2026, the Third Petty Bench of the Supreme Court dismissed the special appeal.
This document was submitted after that to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Japan, the President of the Sendai High Court, and the Criminal Section of the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court as a written inquiry and request.
Accordingly, this document was submitted after the retrial request, immediate appeal, and special appeal had all failed to provide substantive relief concerning the alleged violations of the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial. It asks the courts for official views concerning the effect of the final criminal judgment and the nature of judicial relief.
The issues in this case were not limited to a mere reconsideration of the evaluation of evidence.
The issues raised include the Sukagawa City Council’s resignation recommendation resolutions before the final criminal judgment, violations of the presumption of innocence, prejudicial public expressions by public authorities, the right to a fair trial, the process of statement formation, the charged fact stated as occurring at around 7:40 p.m., the absence of relief through the retrial proceedings, and effective remedy under the ICCPR.
This document asks how these issues can still be explained within the judicial system after judicial relief through retrial proceedings and special appeal had been denied.
Questions Arising from This Document
1. Can a guilty judgment rendered under violations of the presumption of innocence be cured by becoming final?
The central question of this document is whether criminal proceedings and a guilty judgment rendered under circumstances in which the presumption of innocence was violated can be cured by the finality of that judgment.
If such a cure is possible, the legal basis and concrete doctrine of cure become issues.
Conversely, if such a cure is not possible, the question arises how the continued maintenance of the final judgment can be justified within the judicial system while it remains affected by serious defects under the Constitution and international law, namely violations of the presumption of innocence.
2. Does extension of detention under public-authority violations of the presumption of innocence constitute arbitrary detention?
This document asks whether, under circumstances in which a public authority had openly violated the presumption of innocence, a judge’s failure to take that into account and authorization of an extension of detention conflicts with the prohibition of arbitrary detention under Article 9, Paragraph 1 of the ICCPR, and whether it violates constitutional due process.
This point is important for examining how pre-judgment public attribution of guilt may affect decisions concerning physical custody.
3. Can a changed statement made under violations of the presumption of innocence be treated as voluntary?
This document asks whether, when a suspect’s statement changes significantly under circumstances in which a public authority’s violation of the presumption of innocence is suspected, that statement may be admitted as a voluntary statement consistent with due process.
In this case, the issue is the change in the statement concerning the time of the accident from around 7:50 p.m. to around 7:40 p.m.
Accordingly, the voluntariness of the changed statement, external pressure, violation of the presumption of innocence, and the right to a fair trial are all at issue.
4. Do the Sukagawa City Council’s resignation recommendation resolutions conform to Article 14, Paragraph 2 of the ICCPR?
This document asks whether a situation in which a public authority adopts resolutions or similar measures premised on guilt can conform to the guarantee of the presumption of innocence under Article 14, Paragraph 2 of the ICCPR.
If such conformity is asserted, the document asks for specific and logical reasons based on the interpretation of General Comment No. 32, in light of the obligation of good-faith interpretation under Article 31 of the VCLT.
This point shows that the resignation recommendation resolutions in this case must be evaluated not merely as political expressions of intent, but in relation to the ICCPR obligation to guarantee the presumption of innocence.
5. Were ICCPR violations substantively examined in the retrial proceedings?
This document asks whether the courts understand that the alleged facts concerning violations of the presumption of innocence and violations of the ICCPR asserted by the requester were substantively examined in the retrial proceedings.
If no substantive examination was conducted, the question arises whether such handling can be considered compatible with the effective remedy required by Article 2, Paragraph 3 of the ICCPR.
This point directly asks about the relationship between the formal operation of the retrial system and the treaty-based obligation to provide an effective remedy.
6. Can relief under the ICCPR be refused on the basis of domestic retrial requirements?
This document asks whether prioritizing a formal interpretation of domestic law, such as the requirements for retrial under the Code of Criminal Procedure, and refusing relief for violations of rights under the ICCPR is compatible with the treaty-observance obligation under Article 98, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Japan and Article 27 of the VCLT.
This is one of the most important legal questions in this case.
The issue is whether the domestic-law framework may narrow treaty-based remedial obligations, and whether courts may rely on domestic retrial requirements to avoid substantive examination of issues under international human rights law.
7. Would the Japanese judicial judgment be justified in international review?
This document asks whether the maintenance of the criminal proceedings and judgment in this case can be evaluated as compliance with the ICCPR, and whether that judgment framework would also be considered justified in international review, including review by the United Nations Human Rights Committee.
This point positions the case not only within domestic judicial proceedings, but also in relation to potential examination under international human rights law.
8. Did the courts provide a response or take corrective measures in response to this document?
This document requests a written response within 14 days after receipt.
Therefore, whether the courts responded to this document, failed to respond, or took any corrective measures becomes an issue.
This point forms a premise for examining the later Petition for Human Rights Relief and Corrective Action.
Relevant Laws, Treaties, and International Legal Standards
Domestic Law
Article 13 of the Constitution of Japan:
This article is relevant to honor, reputation, and personal interests. In this case, the issue is how pre-judgment public attribution of guilt by a public authority and its circulation through media reports affected the requester’s honor and reputation.
Article 31 of the Constitution of Japan:
This article concerns the guarantee of due process. This document asks whether constitutional due process can be said to have been substantively secured even if the procedures outwardly followed the Code of Criminal Procedure, where violation of the presumption of innocence existed as a premise of those procedures.
Article 34 of the Constitution of Japan:
This article is relevant to arbitrary physical restraint and detention. This document raises the issue of the extension of detention under circumstances in which violation of the presumption of innocence publicly existed, in relation to due process and Article 9, Paragraph 1 of the ICCPR.
Article 37, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution of Japan:
This article concerns the right of a criminal defendant to a fair trial. In this case, the issues include whether a fair criminal trial was secured in relation to resignation recommendation resolutions before judgment, the process of statement formation, the admission of evidence, and the reasons for the judgment.
Article 38, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution of Japan:
This article concerns the right not to be compelled to make statements against oneself. This document raises the issue of a significant change in the contents of the requester’s statement under violations of the presumption of innocence.
Article 38, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Japan:
This article is relevant to the prohibition on admitting involuntary confessions as evidence. This document asks whether it is permissible under due process to treat a changed statement made under suspected violations of the presumption of innocence as a voluntary statement.
Article 98, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution of Japan:
This article concerns the supremacy of the Constitution and the effect of unconstitutional acts. This document asks how the effect of a final judgment rendered under an unconstitutional condition consisting of violation of the presumption of innocence can be grounded.
Article 98, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision requires Japan to faithfully observe the treaties it has concluded and established international law. This document asks whether refusing relief for violations of rights under the ICCPR on the basis of domestic retrial requirements is compatible with this treaty-observance obligation.
Article 99 of the Constitution of Japan:
This article imposes a duty on public officials to respect and uphold the Constitution. This document raises the issue of how public authorities, including courts, must observe the constitutional principles of the presumption of innocence and due process.
Article 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
This provision establishes the balance between discovering the truth and guaranteeing human rights in criminal procedure. This document raises the issue of whether not only formal procedural progress, but also the substantive guarantees of the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial, were secured.
Article 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
This provision concerns interrogation. In this document, it is relevant to the prosecutor’s interrogation on November 2, 2011, and the significant change in the contents of the requester’s statement.
Article 208, Paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
This provision concerns extension of detention. This document raises the issue of whether a judge’s authorization of detention extension under circumstances in which a public authority had openly violated the presumption of innocence was compatible with due process and the prohibition of arbitrary detention.
Article 319, Paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
This provision concerns the prohibition on admitting involuntary confessions as evidence. This document raises the issue in relation to the voluntariness of the changed statement made under violations of the presumption of innocence.
Article 336 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
This provision states that, when there is no proof of a crime, the court must pronounce an acquittal. This document refers to it in relation to the presumption of innocence.
Article 435, Item 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
This provision sets out one of the grounds for retrial, namely the discovery of clear evidence that should lead to an acquittal. In this case, the issue is that the problem was treated in the retrial proceedings as a matter of domestic retrial requirements.
International Human Rights Treaties
Article 2, Paragraph 3 of the ICCPR:
This provision guarantees the right to an effective remedy. This document raises the issue of whether an effective remedy was provided in the retrial proceedings and other judicial proceedings to a party asserting violations of the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial.
Article 9, Paragraph 1 of the ICCPR:
This provision guarantees the right not to be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. This document asks whether the extension of detention under circumstances in which a public authority had violated the presumption of innocence constituted arbitrary detention.
Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the ICCPR:
This provision guarantees the right to a fair trial. This document raises the issue of whether pre-judgment public attribution of guilt, the process of statement formation, admission of evidence, and the court’s judgment were consistent with a fair trial.
Article 14, Paragraph 2 of the ICCPR:
This provision guarantees the presumption of innocence. This document centrally asks whether the Sukagawa City Council’s pre-judgment resignation recommendation resolutions conformed to this guarantee.
Article 14, Paragraph 3(g) of the ICCPR:
This provision guarantees the right not to be compelled to testify against oneself or to confess guilt. This document raises the issue in relation to interrogation and changes in statements under violations of the presumption of innocence.
Article 17 of the ICCPR:
This provision is relevant to protection against unlawful attacks on honor and reputation. This document refers to it in relation to pre-judgment public attribution of guilt and circulation through media reports.
General Comments
General Comment No. 32, Paragraph 4:
This paragraph indicates that the guarantees under Article 14 of the ICCPR are not matters left to domestic-law discretion. In this document, it is important for examining whether domestic retrial requirements or formal criminal procedure may be used to narrow protections under the ICCPR.
General Comment No. 32, Paragraph 6:
This paragraph indicates that no derogation is permitted from fundamental principles of a fair trial, including the presumption of innocence, under any circumstances. In this document, it is important in relation to pre-judgment public attribution of guilt and the absence of relief through the retrial proceedings.
General Comment No. 32, Paragraph 30:
This paragraph indicates that all public authorities must refrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial. In this case, it is important in relation to the resignation recommendation resolutions adopted by the city council before judgment and the public expressions of intent premised on criminal facts.
General Comment No. 31, Paragraph 15:
This paragraph states that allegations of violations must be investigated promptly, thoroughly, and effectively, and that a failure to investigate may itself give rise to a separate violation of the Covenant. In this document, it is important for examining the extent to which the courts effectively examined the allegations of violations of the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial.
General Comment No. 31, Paragraph 16:
This paragraph identifies forms of effective remedy, including compensation or reparation, restitution, rehabilitation, public apologies, guarantees of non-repetition, and changes in relevant laws and practices. In this case, it is important in considering what kind of remedy was required for violations of the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial, rather than a merely formal dismissal.
Standards Concerning Treaty Performance and Interpretation
Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT):
This article provides that every treaty in force is binding upon the parties and must be performed by them in good faith. In this document, it is important in relation to the duty of Japan’s judiciary to faithfully perform obligations under the ICCPR concerning the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial, and effective remedies.
Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT):
This article provides that a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. In this document, the issue is whether relief for violations of rights under the ICCPR may be refused on the basis of domestic retrial requirements under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT):
This article concerns the good-faith interpretation of treaties. This document argues that, in interpreting Article 14, Paragraph 2 of the ICCPR, General Comment No. 32 must be considered and applied in good faith as an international interpretive standard.
The detailed interpretation of each provision, its application to this case, and the interrelationship among these provisions are examined in “Legal Claims and the Structure of Constitutional and Legal Violations.”
Relationship to This Case
This document is the written inquiry and request submitted by Toshio Tsumuraya to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Japan, the President of the Sendai High Court, and the Criminal Section of the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court after the decision of the Third Petty Bench of the Supreme Court dismissing the special appeal.
In this case, the accident in question was alleged to have occurred on October 18, 2011, and Toshio Tsumuraya was arrested the following day, October 19.
Thereafter, on October 26 of the same year, the Sukagawa City Council adopted the first resignation recommendation resolution, and on December 1 of the same year, it adopted the second resignation recommendation resolution.
Both of these were public expressions of intent by a public authority made before the criminal conviction became final.
The issue in this case is not merely the existence of the guilty judgment itself.
The issue is whether, before the guilty judgment became final, a local assembly as a public authority made public expressions of intent premised on criminal responsibility and thereby engaged in prejudicial treatment contrary to the presumption of innocence.
In addition, in this case, the criminal proceedings from arrest, detention, extension of detention, prosecutor’s interrogation, indictment, issuance of the summons for trial date, first hearing, and judgment raise issues concerning the charged fact stated as occurring at around 7:40 p.m., the process of statement formation, statement records of council members who voted in favor of the resignation recommendation resolution, and the sentencing evaluation of the defendant’s status as a city council member in the judgment.
Against this background, Toshio Tsumuraya has raised issues before the courts concerning violations of the presumption of innocence, violations of the right to a fair trial, and the need for judicial relief.
However, at each stage before the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court, the Sendai High Court, and the Supreme Court, the retrial request, immediate appeal, and special appeal were not accepted.
In light of that procedural history, this document asks the courts for official views on how they understand the effect of a final criminal judgment rendered under violations of the presumption of innocence, and what kind of judicial relief is secured in relation to the presumption of innocence and effective remedy obligations under the ICCPR.
Accordingly, this document shows that the issue of judicial relief in this case was presented not merely as a matter of whether a retrial request should be granted, but as a matter concerning the Constitution, the ICCPR, the VCLT, and the accountability of Japan’s judicial system as a whole.
This document confirms that, even after the Supreme Court dismissed the special appeal, the issues of violation of the presumption of innocence, violation of the right to a fair trial, due process, effective remedy, treaty-observance obligations, and the effect of the final criminal judgment continued to be raised.
This point forms the premise for examining the later “Petition for Human Rights Relief and Corrective Action Concerning Violations of the Presumption of Innocence and the Right to a Fair Trial.”
Related Materials
Related pages
The following core pages are currently available in Japanese only.
Record and Verification of the Case
Record and Verification of the Case, Part 1
Record and Verification of the Case, Part 2
Record and Verification of the Case, Part 3
Record and Verification of the Case, Part 4
Record and Verification of the Case, Part 5
Legal Arguments and Structure of Unconstitutionality and Illegality
Related evidence articles:
Written Opinion to the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court—Response to the Court’s Request for Opinion（Plans to post in the future）
Related normative articles:
Related Timeline
October 18, 2011
The accident in question was alleged to have occurred.
October 19, 2011
Toshio Tsumuraya was arrested on suspicion of violating the Road Traffic Act.
October 21, 2011
Toshio Tsumuraya was referred to the public prosecutor.
October 26, 2011
The Sukagawa City Council adopted the first resignation recommendation resolution before the criminal conviction became final.
Around October 30, 2011
As the detention period approached its expiration, the prosecutor requested an extension of detention, and the judge authorized the extension.
November 2, 2011
The prosecutor conducted an interrogation, and a significant change occurred in the statement concerning the time of the accident.
November 9, 2011
Toshio Tsumuraya was indicted in the Road Traffic Act violation case and released on bail on the same day.
November 14, 2011
Judge Shuichi Nezaki of the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court prepared a summons for trial date. In the document explanation attached to this document, this material is described as showing that the court accepted the indictment made under circumstances contrary to the presumption of innocence, determined the trial date, and served the summons on the requester.
December 1, 2011
The Sukagawa City Council adopted the second resignation recommendation resolution before the criminal conviction became final.
December 26, 2011
The first trial hearing was held at the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court.
January 16, 2012
The guilty judgment in the Road Traffic Act violation case was pronounced by the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court.
January 31, 2012
The guilty judgment of the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court became final.
April 28, 2025
Toshio Tsumuraya submitted a written opinion addressed to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the President of the Fukushima District Court, and the Head of the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court.
May 2, 2025
The Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court assigned the case number 2025 Ta No. 1 and treated the matter as a Road Traffic Act retrial request case. On the same date, the branch issued an administrative notice.
June 13, 2025
The Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court issued a request for opinion concerning the matter it had treated as 2025 Ta No. 1, a Road Traffic Act retrial request case.
July 9, 2025
Toshio Tsumuraya submitted a written opinion in response to the request for opinion from the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court.
December 12, 2025
The Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court issued a decision dismissing the retrial request in the matter it had treated as 2025 Ta No. 1, a Road Traffic Act retrial request case.
December 15, 2025
Toshio Tsumuraya filed an immediate appeal against the decision dismissing the retrial request.
January 6, 2026
Toshio Tsumuraya submitted a Supplemental Statement of Reasons for Immediate Appeal to the Criminal Division of the Sendai High Court.
January 8, 2026
The First Criminal Division of the Sendai High Court issued a decision dismissing the immediate appeal.
January 11, 2026
Toshio Tsumuraya prepared a Special Appeal Application and filed a special appeal with the Supreme Court.
February 6, 2026
The Third Petty Bench of the Supreme Court issued a decision dismissing the special appeal.
March 31, 2026
Toshio Tsumuraya submitted this document, “Written Inquiry and Request Concerning the Effect of a Final Criminal Judgment Under Violations of the Presumption of Innocence and Judicial Relief,” to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Japan, the President of the Sendai High Court, and the Criminal Section of the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court. On the same date, the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court stamped it as received.
April 1, 2026
According to the postal delivery certificates, the postal items addressed to the Supreme Court of Japan and the Criminal Litigation Office of the Sendai High Court were delivered.
May 15, 2026
Toshio Tsumuraya submitted this document, “Petition for Human Rights Relief and Corrective Action Concerning Violations of the Presumption of Innocence and the Right to a Fair Trial,and Related Rights,” to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Japan, the President of the Sendai High Court, and the Criminal Section of the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court. On the same date, the Criminal Section of the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court stamped it as received.
May 16, 2026
According to the postal delivery certificate, the postal item addressed to the President of the Sendai High Court was delivered.
May 18, 2026
According to the postal delivery certificate, the postal item addressed to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Japan was delivered.